Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've been holding off on watching "Halloween 3" for the longest time, namely because it's not congruent with the rest of the franchise, and I heard some horror stories (pun intended) regarding just how notrocious it really was.

Dare I say I really, really liked it?

For those who can't brave the film, it's like this. It's 1982, a week before Halloween in California, and an old man is admitted to a hospital after being found prophecizing about impending doom come Halloween night. Not long after, the man is found in his hospital room, dead, with his skull crushed in multiples, in an act that seemed almost impossible by human standards.

A curious doctor who discovered the gruesome scene, as well as the old man's daughter decide to investigate, as she mentioned the last known location of her father was at the Silver Shamrock Novelty Company in Santa Anita, CA. He was purchasing masks for his store. The two are incredibly suspicous, as they notice that the town is curiously obedient, monitored by closed circuit camera, and abides by a curfue.

This is where a lot of people may be turned off, because at this point, we come to find that the missing link of Stonehenge is found inside the factory, and that Coburn, the owner of SSNC, is a devout practioner of witchcraft, and like his culture 3,000 years ago on the night of Halloween, he plans to make the land run red with the blood of children, as it was a way of doing away with pestulant children, and means of population control. His method? Every single Silver Shamrock halloween mask contains a transmitter that is to be activated on Halloween night, at 9:00 P.M. by a special commercial on television, which triggers said device, and since the "power" supply is derived from the Stonehenge piece, the power of witchcraft, those who were the masks are cursed, and upon their death, their heads morph into snakes, spiders, and insects. In addition, Coburn was also somewhat of an engineer and gadget aficionado, so we also learn that he had one of his robotic henchmen take care of the old man at the beginning of the movie, hence, no traceable evidence.

I know it sounds silly as hell, but in all honesty, and hopefully you guys appreciate my views on movies, and how I see them, it plays out better on film..seriously. It's a very fun movie, very schlocky, but at the same time, more creative and enjoyable than a lot of the crap that's out right now. Given a little more coherent, less complicated script, it would make for a great remake, as the actual storyline was great, IMO. C'mon, a witch who effectively rekindles an age old cleansation, on Halloween, with unsuspecting Halloween masks? Good stuff.

Heh, I saw it.. it was interesting... though calling it 'halloween' was misleading..

2 more days til halloween, halloween, halloween.. 2 more days til halloween.. sil-ver shamrock~

Halloween 3 wasn't THAT terrible of a film, IMO. I think the main thing that killed all hope for this movie was the fact that it was the THIRD (3rd) movie in a series called Halloween, and the fact that parts one and two focused on a Shatner masked mental hospital escapee on a killing rampage, yet there was no trace of said character in this installment. If the title of the movie was ANYTHING else but Halloween 3, because people were very much, and understandably, expecting Michael Myers to be the villain, I feel very strongly that the movie would have done much, much better (or at the very least helped with the credibility). However, you are right about the originality of this movie, and even though it's schlocky and seems like it was sponsored by Cheese Whiz, it makes for a fun flick. I should rent it again, now that you put it in my mind, because the last time I watched it was almost 5 years ago.

Hmmm... I'll have to check it out. I've been meaning to see the entire series.

its the only halloween film i actualy like lol

Halloween 3 is a shit movie.

Can't expect anyone to take your opinion for anything when that's all you've got to say, you know?

I have this movie, came with a trilogy VHS boxset I got years ago for christmas.

I only watched it once and remember thinking it was really shitty. It's cheesy, stupid, weird, poorly made, shit acting, and has no place in the Halloween series, both from a quality standpoint and a storyline standpoint (it has nothing to do with the other films, literally - nothing).

That said, it provided some unintentional laughs for me and my friends when we watched it, so I can't give it too much shit.

Originally posted by C-Dic
Can't expect anyone to take your opinion for anything when that's all you've got to say, you know?

Thats all I would waste my time saying on it

maybe the reason for this movie is so they could find a reason for micheal myers to be the way he is since it bombed they probably just went back to the original formula.

I hear they were planning to have a new story each movie after this one but when it bombed at the box office they decided to bring back mikey.

BWHAHAHAHA! Yeah, I loved the first two Halloweens, coz they kick ass, and were influcential to the horro genre, whether you liked them or not. The third one was prettttty fawking lame. If you like LOW GRADE horror cheeze this is one is probably worth a 99 cent rental price. ANyways, yeah it was odd, and it was hilarious at some parts and at others it was BORING as fawk. But you cant argue with little kids heads turing into nasty, rotten flesh ( mixed up with creepy crawlers).

personally i think its quite good. people are just baffled as to why its called 'halloween 3'. that what puts people off.

Originally posted by Deano
personally i think its quite good. people are just baffled as to why its called 'halloween 3'. that what puts people off.

Agreed. If the title of the movie were anything else BUT Halloween 3, it would have not only a wider reputation, but also a much wider fanbase.

Originally posted by Impediment
Agreed. If the title of the movie were anything else BUT Halloween 3, it would have not only a wider reputation, but also a much wider fanbase.

No,I would still think the movies a pile of shit

I didn't read those spoilers because some day I might actually see it, due to some of these comments. Personally, I don't see what the f*ck is so great about the first one which I didn't really like at all, so seeing the sequels (for me at least) I think is a waste of time. Plus, with an apparent misleading title (which I really, really, hate when it comes to films) it makes me want to stray even further from it.

Well, it's like this...Halloween III : Season of the Witch is actually a pretty decent horror film...just not a very good "Halloween" film...and when I say "Halloween" I mean in the Michael Myers sense. I actually like and respect the film for what it is and for what John Carpenter was trying to do with the series. As far as he was concerned, he was done with the whole "Michael Myers" theme after the second one...and wanted to move on with a new movie(s) that all had a common "Halloween" theme...as in the Oct. 31st holiday. I think that would actually had been a better idea instead of bringing Michael back again, and again, and again because that just gets old after awhile. Now when you have a new part in the series coming out about a new killer or story, that keeps things fresh and interesting. But the fans had to b**ch and complain and get their way, so they brought Michael back because people love mindless and pointless movies that require little thought. That's not to say that I don't enjoy the "Halloween" movies, I do...but it would've been cool to see what other ideas John Carpenter had in mind for the rest of the films in the series they way he originally wanted to do them. I think if the film had been called just "Season of the Witch", it would've done better at the box office and better all around with horror fans...but I still respect the film and actually enjoy the film for what it is.

I don't like the Halloween series but at least 3 had the the balls not to put Michael myers in it.

I just saw it today. I went into it knowing that Michael isn't in it so I could keep an open mind about it.

It wasn't as terrible as a lot of people say. Sure, it has nothing to do with the rest of the series (though, IMO, it's better fitting for the "Halloween" title as it actually has something to do with Halloween other than just taking place on October 31). As a stand-alone movie, not bad.

It's cheesy as hell but enjoyable. The gore was nice. Even I was grossed out when the lady got zapped in the face with the Shamrock coin thing. And that Silver Shamrock song was creepy.

I'm glad that they went back to Michael for H4 though. If Carpenter wanted to continue the series with completely unrelated stories, he could just make them without having to tack on the "Halloween" title to them. And the third movie is the wrong place to do something completely different. "Season of the Witch" would have done much better than "Halloween 3: Season of the Witch" did.

Well, Carpneter himself only wrote the first two movies. After that, he co-produced a couple, 3 included, which more or less he lent his name and money to the project with no creative imput.

Originally posted by K.Diddy
Thats all I would waste my time saying on it and that.

I hated Halloween 3

I looked on wikipedia about Halloween 3 and that it was produced on a budget of 2.5 million, Halloween 3 grossed 14.4 million at the box office in the united states. it made the poorest film in the Halloween series at the time. I didn't like it and I slept through most of it and I never could get the plot of the movie. john carpenter didn't direct this film, it was tommy lee Wallace and he also directed Stephen king's it, carpenter did the music.

i'm not a fan of the halloween series (there i said it), but i might check it out now i know micheal isn't in it.

Haloween movies should have stopped at 2

The only good thing about Haloween two is how the cops kill a guy in a jason outfit by ramming him into a truck and blowing up the car and they just walk away like nothing happened?!?

actually he didn't look like Jason but Micheal myers. except he was younger and Micheal was 21 at the time. they didn't kill him he was walking across the street and the police car was driving too fast in the neighborhood and the car hit him into a truck and the cop fell out before the care blew up. they didn't walk away and just ignore it, Micheal was much bigger problem than a car exploding. it was dealt with but in a desperate way while trying to capture Micheal at the same time.

Never really got Halloween 3 of why it went to halloween masks tfrom the Michael Myers storyline.

the movie was never part of the storyline and it should be renamed to something else because it had nothing to do with Micheal myers. it wasn't even directed by john carpenter but by tommy lee Wallace. I don't understand why it is even named Halloween if Micheal is not in it. I think it would have alot more money and less criticized if the movie was named something that would fit the movie. it did cause a gap between part 2 and 4.the second one was in the early eighties and the 4 one was in the late eighties which gave it enough time not to rush into making other sequels as soon as the second one ended and gave fans a fresh new series.

I'll have to watch this again. I watched Halloween 3 when I was probably 7 or 8, and my brother told me to close my eyes during some parts so I need to see it again to really judge the movie correctly

So if it wasn't directed by the same person why is it called Halloween 3 must of had permission. Probably will have t root out a copy and watch got half way through and turned it off and didn't watch the rest....

I watched the movie twice but I just had enough watching the second time. it did horribly in the box office barely making more than the original budget. I think it did have permission to be called Halloween for some reason.

i havent watched this film in forever. but i remimber some scene
where one of the masks melts onto some kids head haha i remimber that scene and the positive comments have me interested in watching it now that i have aged

Originally posted by cking
actually he didn't look like Jason but Micheal myers. except he was younger and Micheal was 21 at the time. they didn't kill him he was walking across the street and the police car was driving too fast in the neighborhood and the car hit him into a truck and the cop fell out before the care blew up. they didn't walk away and just ignore it, Micheal was much bigger problem than a car exploding. it was dealt with but in a desperate way while trying to capture Micheal at the same time.

Whoops

I meant micheal, not jason

However, by the way I precived it thats how it happened

They didn't plan on Halloween to be associated with Michael Myers. If H3 was successful, H4 would've been another completely different story, as would H5 and onward. People didn't respond to it (with all good reason, the third movie is a terrible place to try something different) and they brought back Michael for the rest of the sequels.

should have risked it and kept changing, couldn't have been any worse than H2O and the other movies after that point. but this is just a cynical Friday supporters opinion so...

Halloween H20 was much better than Halloween 3. Halloween 3 would have more success if the title was changed. Halloween fans back in the day expected this to be another Halloween with Micheal as usual. I think that the previews back then took the Micheal fans off guard because it didn't have Micheal in it and it pretty much confused them to the point that they would simply not see it because halloween wouldn't be halloween if Micheal is not in it. When I saw the cover of Halloween 3 I thought it was just another movie with Micheal in it but I turned to see the credits on the other side of the case and Micheal was not on the back of it like he usually is on the front cover of all his sequels. So I was thinking well maybe Micheal is in it even through he wasn't in the previews. So I watched it and I was disappointed and just plain bored to the fact Micheal was not in it. I was thinking who ever directed this movie what is he thinking to name a movie Halloween without Micheal in it?

I can't see how an advertisement would be misleading, making the audience think a character is in it without actually telling you "He's back" or showing at least one scene with him. Any movie that features Michael Myers would surely show him in the trailer.

The back cover of the VHS tape clearly says that it's a completely new story and has nothing to do with the previous Halloween movies.

And Halloween H20 was dull.

Halloween maybe be dull but it is still head and shoulders above Halloween 3.

I mean H20.

Haloween H20 wasn't brillaint but funny at times mostly not a tru e horror or suspence really but still better than 3.

the first two beats them all.

the 1st is easily the best but h2 and h20 are tied for 2nd

both are better than 4 and 5 which feature that whiny brat that should have died in 4.

halloween 4 was good and jamie was a good character aswell

true it would have been better if Jamie didn't whine as much, it is like yes we get it Micheal is going to kill you just shut up and do something about it.

halloween 3 didnt do the worst at the box office halloween 5 did. Anyway hellraiser and cotc didnt do well at the box office but they were both good

true, the budget was 6 million and it only grossed 11 million, that is terrible compared to H3 2.5 million budget and grossed 14.4 million. I liked part 5 much better than H3 though.

halloween 5 was disappointing but watchable while halloween 8 wasnt even watchable it was just a way to cash in on h20s success

Halloween five could have been better if it had been different than part 4.

It can be better.

take out Jamie and it might be better.

I'm not MM! Jamie is part of the story line...remember it's his cause.

true, I just don't like her because she whines for so much even for her age.

She's a very smart and brave little girl just like her uncle.

not really, after awhile she shouldn't be so scared of Michael anymore since she is use to him. she should confront him with help of other people brave enough to fight him which it wouldn't do much good but it would stop all that complaining and she should start planing traps or find some way to stop him using the surroundings. Dr. loomis could help her with the traps by using her as a decoy. instead of trying to fight him one on one.

He's good for a reason. He still has a heart but he's not alone...unfortunately.

yeah only to be controlled by the curse of thorn.

part 6

thats right, it talks about it more in that movie than the others.

I'm not happy with the men portraying the shape. They could have done a much better work. The reason I want them remade 1~6

are you talking about the characters?

The only guy that played Myers twice was George P Wilbur and he was fat in part 6. I would like the same guy in the jumpsuit that you can easily recognize and also the same mask...I hate when they change it.

he wasnt fat he was big muscle wise

the only reason they do is to make him bigger and more powerful each movie, just like Jason.

Jason is all wrong. Michael are the men behind the mask and mask.

I hated this movie. I didn't even need to be made. What a waste.

the machine OMG...run!

Originally posted by redcaped
the machine OMG...run!

it seems mike gets bigger and bigger each movie. I guess bigger means more intimidating in that business.

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
Heh, I saw it.. it was interesting... though calling it 'halloween' was misleading..

2 more days til halloween, halloween, halloween.. 2 more days til halloween.. sil-ver shamrock~

yeah I thought that was kind of cool.

Originally posted by Impediment
Halloween 3 wasn't THAT terrible of a film, IMO. I think the main thing that killed all hope for this movie was the fact that it was the THIRD (3rd) movie in a series called Halloween, and the fact that parts one and two focused on a Shatner masked mental hospital escapee on a killing rampage, yet there was no trace of said character in this installment. If the title of the movie was ANYTHING else but Halloween 3, because people were very much, and understandably, expecting Michael Myers to be the villain, I feel very strongly that the movie would have done much, much better (or at the very least helped with the credibility). However, you are right about the originality of this movie, and even though it's schlocky and seems like it was sponsored by Cheese Whiz, it makes for a fun flick. I should rent it again, now that you put it in my mind, because the last time I watched it was almost 5 years ago.

the last time I saw it was like 10 years ago.But yeah seeing the title of this thread and the posts brings back memorys again for me about it and your right,its really actually a pretty good movie as long as you dont think of it as being called Halloween 3 since it has nothing to do with the other two films.When you dont think of it as a Michael Myers Halloween movie and you go into it looking at it as a seaparate entity from the Michael Myers halloween movies its actually not that bad and a pretty entertaining movie and fun flick IMO as well.Yeah I think I'll rent it again sometime soon as well just for kicks.

I got a feeling we will be having a Michael Myers Halloween 3. Is this the Horror forum?

bump

I just watched it for the first time in years.


It was cheesy, but not too terrible of a horror movie, if you can get past the fact that it's part of the Halloween franchise, and that Michael Myers is not even remotely involved.

Of course Michael is involved...he's on the TV in the bar...he's a celebrity